So, I can have a kid and do nothing for him or her. If the kid is sick, do you just sit them in the corner, send them to their room? I am confused, the children never asked to be here. I understand that people may need help but I do not think help is handing out money - it is through education and training. I would be happy if she 1k was going towards her learning a new skill or going further with education so that she could 1. Move, 2. Read with her kids, 3. Help them with their homework, 4. Give the children inspiration to learn.

I do understand that this privately funded but what happens to this woman when her 12 children leave the house, has she learned a skilled, saved for her retirement, or will she be on a system that is becoming obsolete.

We really need to wake up as a NATION - what the F are we really doing - what message are we sending.

This is interesting...I mean it makes sense but it seems rather silly doesnt it? Also that kind of money worries me- like are these parents learning to be better parents because of money?? Isn't this common sense? Of course if the money pays for these services FOR their kids, I would feel better. I have a lot of thoughts on it- I see the positives and the negatives.

i think this is stupid, but it's private money, so i really have no say in the matter. how about giving these people microloans and business training to help them start their own businesses and/or enter the workforce. early/timely pay off of the loans could be rewarded with a reduction in the final loan amount, as an incentive. the loans and training would amount to the same amount of "financial freedom", but the money would have to be repaid, which would add in an element of the real world. microloans to people in developing countries have increased exponentially over the past few years, and the payback rate is very high. why can't we do that here?

completely unbelieveable!

Unbelievable. If you have 12 kids, it's your own fault that you are poor.

I agree bella and yy - we shouldn't necessarily be handing out money to people just to be parents. These families will be better served by getting the parents educated and skilled to get jobs to get their families out of these awful neighborhoods. I wonder what happens when this private funding dries up and these families are left in the same state they were before this program?

I completely agree MartiniLush!!! They need to be educated!!!

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services Linda Gibbs today announced that 1,431 families received their first cash transfers for completing specific activities related to education, health and workforce participation and training as part of Opportunity NYC, the nation’s first conditional cash transfer (CCT) program. Families earned an average of $524, for a total of $740,000, in this innovative pilot program aimed at reducing poverty among New York City’s poorest residents. Opportunity NYC, which is funded by private donations, is based on the international model of CCT programs, and is one of the flagship initiatives of the Mayor’s Center for Economic Opportunity (CEO) which was established to look at new ways of reducing poverty in New York City.

http://www.rockfound.org/about_us/news/2007/1217oppty_nyc.shtml

In order to qualify and receive the incentive payments, participants must submit coupons verifying the activities they completed during each of the bi-monthly program periods, the first of which ran from September 1 to October 31, 2007. Families recruited after the close of the first payment period will receive the earned incentives as part of the amount earned for the second payment period ending December 31, 2007. Families can earn an average of $4,000 to $6,000 a year depending on their family composition and the activities completed. Incentive payments are directly deposited into existing or recently-opened bank accounts or stored value cards. The program will last for 2 to 3 years.

oh, and yy - I really like your idea about the microloans here in the US. It been so successful in developing nations.

I couldn't imagine being so poor that I would qualify for this "free" money. The point is that it isn't for the adult, but for the child. We all tout how it just sucks that your parents work blah blah blah and how parents are never around, but put yourself in their position for one moment...this is not a black and white issue. The gray areas are where this will work...

SugarKat, I also couldn't imagine being this poor - I am sure many people couldn't. My main problem with this is that this program will only be around for a few years - then what? These families will be left in the same position they are in now...how did that help them then? The only thing that will truely help these parents and their children will be for the parents to get an education and job skills to support them, so that they won't be dependant on these types of programs.

Bella, thanks for finding more info, I am going to the link you posted to find out more!

SugarKat, I grew up like this (been homeless too) and given my mom money would help in the short term yes but what happens in the long term- how does she survive in this world. The children may benefit but what is it teaching them. I believe the money does help and provides a good interaction between the parent and child but the child sees momma getting money from the government or someone else - is she working, trying to work, why can't the company give her job training, or help her learn interviewing skills. Seriously, what happens when the money runs out.

I was talking to people Sunday and you know what people that are 35+ that never learned how to save think Social Security will be able to fund their retirement. You know what I told them - wake up unless they like dog food then they need to cut back and learn to save. And yes, we had a workshop on finacial planning.

No problem, MartiniLush.

Bella you make some great points. I think it is more important to put the money towards skills for parent AND child to avoid paying into a cycle.

i feel that because of this poor people are going to have children to be able to get the special funding.

I think the idea is the money is supposed to make up for the salary that these parents are missing when they have to stay home to take kids for check-ups or parent/teacher conferences.

Those are all good points about what will the adult do later and that helping them to provide for their children and attain self-sufficiency is the goal. Of course looking at it from the outside in is very different from what these families see. They are at subsistence level thinking-- things like making sure the kids go to school, get to the doctor and looking past "today" are at times more than they can handle. As a social worker I see this all the time. It is very easy to become frustrated with that kind of mindset but I can see some pros to giving an incentive to the kinds of actions we know promote a better future for children. It might not change things but it could be a catalyst in a community. I think job-skills classes and other enrichment for the parent would be a good addition to this program.

I'm sure this is funded by a foundation of some sort and if this is beneficial to the community the agency implementing it will apply for more funding.

I also see that this could be harmful-- we do want parents to take care of their children because it is the right thing to do not only because it will put money in their pocket.

bengal, thats what i thought too. I didnt think it was that the woman with 12 kids didnt have a job just that she worked so long at a job that probably doesnt pay much of anything that they would pay to supplement the money she is missing from not working. Its an interesting idea.

It would be good if they started thinking of a phase 2 for this plan like how to help get some of these parents into programs so they can make more money, have better benefits and be better able to support their families.

It would be interesting to know if most of the parents on this plan do have jobs. I know this woman with 12 children doesnt, but its obvious why they picked her for the story. I wonder if she is the norm or on the extreme end of the spectrum?

Bella, thanks for providing your "been there" perspective! I think you make some excellent points. And Taadie, you are exactly right - they need to expand or think up another phase to the program that will enable the parents to move beyond this.

In a day and age where poverty stricken neighborhoods have basically become criminal farms I can understand N.Y.C. act of desperation. They are trying to fill a void left by society in not being attentive to the importance of education, after school programs and above all the general well being of our children. An inadequate appreciation of how the lack of said attention has deep and lasting impact on the general well being of society itself is our true aliment. The ultimate remedy is not paying parents to parent but to pay a deep reverence to all children and provide nothing short of excellent education to all.

Well said, Hypno! Education is totally the key!

This would be great if there was another phase to this or even phases to ensure long term success for parents and families involved. Some people are surprised but when there is time taking to show someone to do something, help them, or even point them in the right direction so they can be independent --I believe a lot of people will take it and do very well with it. I just think it needs to go beyond the money and show people that they have self worth and that they are not only helping themselves, their children, but their community.

I love yy's idea - its helping people to literally help themselves.

YY, you should get a job with local government or something so you can implement you ideas locally.

raciccarone. that's a great idea. i will look into it, post haste.

Where I come from you go to prison for neglect if you don't take your kids to the doctor when they are sick. You can also go to prison if your kids don't attend school as much as they are supposed to. Removing kids from homes where they are not receiving basic care should be the number one priority. The threat of losing your kids should be more than enough incentive for these women to stop having more. People say these kids are better off with their parents because they love them. What kind of love is that?

chicagojlo, I understand where you are coming from. Parents should be parents no matter what. However, you take these children and put them in foster care - will they be better off? Getting caught up in the system or living with a less than steller foster family is what some kids get and its worse than the situation they were in. There are good people out there who are great foster parents. I am just trying to see how we focus on the problems and get a solution - over populating jails have not stopped crime and neither will over populating children within the system.

Bellaressa you are right, but I don't see how training kids to think that being a parent is a job you should only do for financial reward is going to break the cycle either. So far this woman with 12 kids has had to bear no consequence for her actions - her kids are paying the price, while she cashes in.
I'd rather see an end to IVF and the adoption of children from overseas who have living parents. If people who can't have kids of their own are really so desperate to be parents why don't they adopt or foster? The money they are prepared to sink into having the baby of their choice could make so much difference to the lives of these kids (and yes I'm a parent, as well as having a adoped sister).

chicagojlo, well if you go to the site that Citzen gave - the lady says her kids know nothing of the money. I don't know if that is true but some parents do not talk finances with their kids.

chicagojlo, I wish more people would adopt but the truth is there are a lot of children in the system and are there until 18. Some people do not want a child over a certain age, it could be anything, however, people are not adopting them. There are some people that I know of that are foster parents for the check ---it was their incentive to become foster parents. In every situation the child loses - so why not try to educate and try to break the cycle.

How about paying for birth control and sex-ed? If you can't support a family- DON'T HAVE ONE!

From personal experience I will tell you why this is a good program. My mom had 3 children within 3 years, not because she wanted to, but because her birth control didn't work. Then her husband cheated on her and they got divorced. Then, his child support checks bounced.

For every day she went to work to provide, she gave half that money to a babysitter. She ran all her errands (shopping or laundry) at lunch so she could spend as much time at home as possible.

If she did not have cash in hand the doctor would not treat her children. If she missed work for any reason, like the one time she had a kidney infection and the doctor gave her a shot that made her sleep for 36 hours (yes the babysitter stayed the whole time and called in for her), her boss wanted to fire her.

These are not all negligent parents. These are people in bad situations doing the best they can. They want to take care of their children more than anything, but they have severely limited options. While I was growing up, my mom had to work 10-12 hour days, 6 days a week, and she spent her 1 day off going to the grocery store and the doctor (and parent-teacher conferences). Eventually we got insurance, and a house, but we were always latchkey kids.

I suspect many of these people are like my mom and might someday work their way out of poverty, but I would praise any effort to help struggling parents get their kids to the doctor or whatever else they need.

I don't get it. We pay these parents for properly taking care of their children? If they weren't getting paid would they not do these things they should be doing in the first place? Maybe the money would be better spent on parenting classes, birth control and programs to keep these kids busy when their parents are at work.

I agree, I'd rather see funding and effort go into preventing people from having kids they can't take care of.

Like birth control?

It's easy to say that when you're poor you shouldn't have children or that they should have used birth control, but when you're raised in an environment where this is considered the NORM for decades, the cycle won't end. Yes, you can say teach them and educate them (which is something that should be done), but some people don't want to take the time to do so because they don't care for At-Risk schools and neighborhood environments. It's a pity.

I think education is key in life and this private provider is doing good thing to help those society wants to forget about and condemn.

Beatbox, I totally agree with you. There are many factors on why people have so many children and environment is one of them. Single mothers are the ones who are going to be most effected by this initiative and it can be difficult if you are the only responsible parent looking out for multiple children. Most of this families have jobs that don't allow days off so they neglect doctors appointments to pay for food.

I don't think any of us can really know the difficulty of being a parent living in poverty unless you have actually been there.

this is intereting to me.. I think its good that the money goes to where it is needed but how do you know the money even goes to the kids well being. if i was a scholarship or maybe a vocher for a bill or something than i think it would be eaiser for me to understand.

I'm glad it's privately funded because paying people to have children is probably the dumbest way to spend money.

Does the money get monitored. Who's to say that the money doesn't get spent on something like drugs or a new big screen T.V.?

That is why people have been SCREAMING for welfare reform for years. Teacha man to fish...It certainly isn't a new concept. But a certain group doesn't want to change it at all. They are quite happy with the way things are.

'I don't think any of us can really know the difficulty of being a parent living in poverty unless you have actually been there.'

I feel you on this one Gitsie...because Ive been there. My mother stuggled to raise me and my brothers.

This is also done in parts of Europe. In some places offers a paid maternity leave of 3 years.

"I don't think any of us can really know the difficulty of being a parent living in poverty unless you have actually been there."

But...so? I don't necessarily need to experience something to have a well-reasoned opinion on it. It seems that not having experienced something enables one to have more dispassionate and logical ideas. We don't only let the victims of crimes make the laws. I didn't need to have 12 kids to realize that it's a bad idea.

Does this mean some of my tax money might actually go to something worthwhile and not welfare?

Gotta say...12 kids?! Seriously? These types of people who cant figure out how to work birth control seriously make me mad.